In a recent interview with Arise TV, Nigerian lawyer Barrister Festus Ogwuche clarified the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision regarding the pro-Wike and pro-Fubara lawmakers. He emphasized that the court did not grant any favours to either group but simply defined the jurisdictional limits of the High Court of Rivers State concerning vacancies in the House of Assembly.
Ogwuche explained that the Court of Appeal's ruling focused on delineating the boundaries of the High Court's authority. He stressed that this decision did not resolve the substantive issues at hand but merely addressed procedural jurisdiction.
He highlighted that the ultimate responsibility for providing a definitive interpretation of the constitutional provisions rests with the Supreme Court. According to Ogwuche, only the Supreme Court can deliver a final adjudication that will be accepted by all parties involved in the dispute.
In the interview, Ogwuche stressed that parties involved in the case cannot impose their own interpretations on judicial decisions. He reiterated that the Court of Appeal's ruling was limited to defining the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction regarding the House of Assembly's vacancies.
Ogwuche also mentioned the role of the National Assembly in determining the vacancy of the membership by virtue of the constitution. He noted that whether this aligns with the constitution and the federal framework is a separate matter that also requires interpretation.
Barrister Ogwuche called for patience and underscored the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's interpretation. He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court's final decision would provide a clear and satisfactory understanding of the constitutional issues, thereby resolving the current jurisdictional disputes.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO FROM 10:44
Hear him: "The National Assembly also has the power to determine that vacancy by virtue of the constitution whether it panders with the constitution and the Federal framework is a different matter altogether. It's for the Supreme Court to give an interpretation that will satisfy all parties.''